A lot of talk lately about certain teams without income tax having an unfair advantage with the salary cap as they're able to sign players at a discount. Not much talk about how to fix it but I have one fairly simple idea (in theory). Fans of these teams won't like it but how about no tax teams don't get the cap increase that is going to be taking place over the next few seasons? It's expected to go past $100 million in 3 seasons or so, well how about no tax teams stay at $88 million or at least have a reduced cap increase compared to every other team.
Eventually the league settles on a certain percentage, whether it's 15-25% less than other teams - at least this advantage will be taken away from them. It might be complicated to have two different salary caps but perhaps its worth a try. Thoughts?
I disagree with the whole premise that it is an unfair advantage. Do the Rangers have any problems attracting free agents? The Bruins? Red Wings? Flyers? Blackhawks? The question really is who has difficulty attracting free agents. Canadian based teams perhaps, but the Canucks have been able to do it, as have the Leafs. The Alberta teams, Jets, Sens, and Habs certainly have had struggles. Minnesota (outside of the Parise/Suter megadeals) have not been major players, nor have Buffalo.
There are certain characteristics these teams all share.and some that are unique to their own markets. They all share shitty climates during the dead of winter. Would you rather go to work in three layers of clothing hoping that your car doesn't go into a ditch or in your sports car wearing shorts and sandals (and go golfing after work)? Buffalo has made losing and disappointment an art form. Alberta and Winnipeg offer little in terms of extracurriculars and we all know the lack of privacy in Montreal. And until Edmonton the last few years, none were legitimate consistent Stanley Cup contenders.
Aside from looking at the drawbacks, what benefits do these clubs have? Whatever you lose in taxes, you will more than make up for in endorsement deals (especially in Canadian markets). Some clubs like Montreal have the resources to heavily front-load contracts and pay in signing bonuses instead of salary. A 5 million AAV contract is worth more if you collect most of it in the first half of the contract.
Even the tax issue itself isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. While they may pay less in state income tax they may pay more in municipal tax (after all, infrastructure and services need to be paid somehow). And even though they're based in tax-exempt states, they still pay state/provincial taxes when on the road playing away games. While there are tax-sharing agreements between the jurisdictions, Canadian athletes still file federal returns on their income regardless where it's earned. I don't know if that's also true provincially. There are specialists employed by athletes to ensure they pay the least amount possible tax possible.
How would you propose to tackle the advantages that large resource teams have to front-load contracts? Or to offset what players lose in alternate revenue streams? At the end of the day there are a myriad of reasons, many of which have been mentioned already, that go into a free agent's decision. You're cherry picking one advantage and think it's an epidemic when it really isn't.
